Their utility to society hasn't dried up if you stick them on a bicycle connected to a dynamo which then generates electricity. If they did that for a few hours a day they could then serve some purpose.

Hey thats pretty clever!

Matt Z wrote:

That's true. However, the most convincing argument against the death penalty (for me at least) that the criminal justice system is imperfect.

Right, that's why I think that the use of the death penalty must be very judicious. I'm not opposed to it in principle. Someone with multiple convictions for serious offenses (rape, assault with intent to kill, murder, etc.).

RE: Gay marriage. If a certain church doesn't want gays to get married in their church, fine. I don't know why you would want to be part of a church that doesn't accept you anyways. But if homosexuals want to get married outside of church or in a church that's fine with gay marriage, why not?

I would like to hear from one of you guys who thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman (ironmaiden perhaps?). Because I'm yet to hear a quality justification for it, and I am interested in your insight.

I think a lot of people have trouble with the idea that you don't have to condone something to allow it. For example, I don't condone infidelity, but at the same time I can't see throwing someone in prison for cheating on his wife (or her husband).

Abortion - There's is an ethical dilemma her for sure. But ultimately yet again, what's it got to do with me? It's a choice that is down to the individual as far as i'm concerned, they're the ones who have to live with the after effects.

Church - I pay more attention to the turd that drops out my ass every morning than i do them. In this world we have to deal with war, famine, natural disasters, climate change, economic meltdown, and what's the church's main worry at the moment?.............whether gay men are banging each other in the ass. Pathetic really.

"Abortion - There's is an ethical dilemma her for sure. But ultimately yet again, what's it got to do with me? It's a choice that is down to the individual as far as i'm concerned, they're the ones who have to live with the after effects." - Proper Knob

So by that logic, human sacrifice is okay as long as no one sacrifices you or anyone you like?

I would like to hear from one of you guys who thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman (ironmaiden perhaps?). Because I'm yet to hear a quality justification for it, and I am interested in your insight.

I'm an ignorant American when it comes to gay marriage, that is my quality justification. Not big on gays, I won't lie, I'm over here they are over there, thats how I like it. Make myself ignorant enough yet?

"Because a lot of women are old. They "know their place" and they are past child bearing years. Younger woman disagree. We don't get pregnant so we don't understand what it is like. It is kind of funny that most people who are pro life can't get pregnant." - Ironman

I've never seen any statisics on whether or not young women are more likely to be pro-choice. However, I would imagine that becoming a parent might influence ones views on abortion.

Elective third-trimester abortions may be rare, but they shouldn't happen at all.

Meanwhile, sperm may be alive, but it's not exactly human. It only has half as many chromosomes as a blood cell or skin cell.

Likewise, I wouldn't tell anyone what they can and can't do with their body. However, a fetus isn't a body part, it's a human life. The mother and fetus don't even share blood.

The problem is when late term abortion comes up, one side says ban them all, the other side says we need to allow for medical problems, the first side says that is a loop hole it's not acceptable. Nobody agrees so it dies. That's why it exists.

I really don't think having all the chromosomes is a good criteria. when the brain forms at the end of the first trimester might be a good criteria. Or maybe a little later when it is more developed.

Different people have a different belief about it. It's a personal thing.

When the child is in the woman's body she should have a choice about it. In the vast majority of cases, it is a young girl who can't raise a child, and she is very scared. Legislating this is not the way to go about this.

Sex education and contraceptives are the way to solve this. There also needs to be quick easy access to abortion so if a woman is going to do that, she does it early on.

Woman generally want to have the abortion as soon as they find out if that is what they want to do. The whole reason to do that rather than adopt, is because they know they don't want it and they don't want to be pregnant. Being pregnant for several months defeats the one of the main points for elective abortion.

Delay tactics are 1 small reason why abortions happen later. But the main reason is there is some kind of complication. It may be something that sounds like an acceptable risk to a lot of people, but maybe to this girl, it does not sound acceptable.

You also don't want to create a black market. That never works.

So like I said, legislation is not the answer. The answer is to prevent unwanted pregnancy with education and contraceptives.

Besides the abortion issue, kids need to know about sex and the sort of feelings they will start having. They need to learn about preventing disease, holding off until they are sure they are ready for sex and not just rushing into it. Keeping them in the dark and telling them to say no doesn't work. If it did our species would not be here be talking about this.

Their utility to society hasn't dried up if you stick them on a bicycle connected to a dynamo which then generates electricity. If they did that for a few hours a day they could then serve some purpose.

Hey thats pretty clever!

Matt Z wrote:

That's true. However, the most convincing argument against the death penalty (for me at least) that the criminal justice system is imperfect.

Right, that's why I think that the use of the death penalty must be very judicious. I'm not opposed to it in principle. Someone with multiple convictions for serious offenses (rape, assault with intent to kill, murder, etc.).

RE: Gay marriage. If a certain church doesn't want gays to get married in their church, fine. I don't know why you would want to be part of a church that doesn't accept you anyways. But if homosexuals want to get married outside of church or in a church that's fine with gay marriage, why not?

I would like to hear from one of you guys who thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman (ironmaiden perhaps?). Because I'm yet to hear a quality justification for it, and I am interested in your insight.

The only reasons listed are these

1) Slippery slope. They say next will be animals kids and relatives. To them I bet homos and child molesters do seem like the same thing. Still silly though.

2) It somehow degrades or devalues their straight Christian marriage. It will destroy the nuclear family and society as we know it. Again very silly.

3) You have to procreate or in some cases just be able to procreate depending on the person arguing it. Very silly since not all straight couples want kids. Of course we are all evil godless heathens so we don't count anyway.

4) Just because the bible says gay is evil.

5) An expansion on 4, that god will punish us for allowing gays to do this or tolerating them.

6) no reason or just restating marriage is between man and woman, or just making the Adam and Steve joke. This usually just indicates homophobia usually due to lack of contact with homosexuals.

Those are all the arguments I have ever been presented with.

By the way IM, that is actually brave of you to admit how you feel. It is the first step towards acceptance.

I hated gays until I was in my mid teens. I had the strange notion they would try to look at your penis in the bathroom or they would come on to you or fondle your butt or something like that. I finally realized they are the same as me, just are attracted to men. Or in some cases they like women with testosterone and male genitals. Depending on the guy.

Now the females, I can understand a bit, because some of them are really hateful. But they are not all like that. It's just a small group of them that are sexist.

You'll get no argument from me about the need for sex education. Still education alone will never eliminate unwanted pregnancies. Meanwhile, I have a hard time believing teens don't know where babies come from.

I didn't say they don't know where babies come from. I am saying nobody encouraged them to use protection, or told them all the choices they have, or how to use any of this stuff. They were told to say no. It's not long before they aren't able to just say no and they are unprepared for the moment when it happens. Where as with education they would have been much more likely to be prepared.

In addition to education, if I had a daughter, I would put her on the pill at 12 or 13 or maybe younger if she was an early bloomer. It's like an insurance policy. You have to buy the policy BEFORE your house catches fire. Plus if you are more reasonable, they are more likely to listen when you tell them about condoms and waiting until they are older.

What we really need is sterilization that lasts about 10 years. You could have people doing the whole Bob Barker thing, "help reduce the bastard population, have your kids temporarily spayed or neutered."

I had the opposite experience with sex education. Instead of "Just Say No" I got "Just Use A Condom." Meanwhile, abstinance was treated as something as a joke. Well, the truth is not everyone has sex in high school, even if it might seem that way at the time.

Well then that wasn't comprehensive sex ed either. Parents have to be a part of it too though. Strange abstinence never got stressed. Maybe it was just a joke to the kids, which would make sense knowing how boys are at that age. Planned Parenthood generally stresses abstinence as the first method of protection that you start with. Of course among liberals there could be a backlash due to abstinence only approach that gets forced in some areas. That would be unfortunate since abstinence is a good starting point. It's the "only" part that is the problem. It's the only problem so to speak. Pardon the pun.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum